Free Republic

While I don’t agree with your sentiment, I know you have a kernel of truth in your comment. When Bush ran, our church was fired up. For Romney - I know in my church we had very tepid support. He was merely the best of two evils. As i phone banked for him, I heard from plenty of baptists who hated obama, but felt morally unable to vote for a cultist. I tried to encourage them to vote - but I know in my heart I too felt regret that we couldn’t get a christian to be the nominee.

Well said.

Amen, and well said.

I don’t see any difference.
Obama = Kenyan
Romney = Mexican

Romney = Pro Abortion
Obama = Pro Abortion

Romney = Liberal
Obama = Liberal

Obama never served in the military.
Romney never served in the military.

Obama if not muslim, clearly sympathizes with them
Romney is mormon. They both are not true christians.

So, from where I am sitting - there is no difference between the two.

As a christian, I cannot compromise with the devil. Getting republicans elected, great. But I am a christian first, republican second.

As a christian, I cannot bear false witness. I cannot donate to a campaign I don’t believe in, I cannot make calls on behalf of a candidate I know is evil.

As a christian, I know that everything follows God’s plan. My adhering to his teachings will not endanger this country any more than going to church on wednesday and sunday endangers this country.

So I know, I am called, I am compelled by my faith to NOT vote for evil, for Romney. I know that my doing so will be in accordance to God’s plan, and God’s teachings. I don’t know what a conservative, christian boycott of Romney will bring, but it will be as it should be. And maybe, next time around - and there will be a next time, God Willing - we won’t be taken for granted by those who need us.

I don’t necessarily think your reasons are correct, but I believe the outcome you cited will be the one that’ll happen.

How could Republicans be so close to nominating a mormon? And a liberal one at that?

Thank you for that wonderful, eye popping post. I wasn’t predisposed to vote for Romney - but your point was made elegantly without sacrificing the sledgehammer like impact.

We ARE responsible to God for our actions, including our votes.

I am sorry, KevinDavis- but a mormon will not get elected president. Neither would a muslim, nor a buddhist, nor an aethist. Because in the end, we are a christian nation, with a christian people- and we won’t be electing people whom cannot turn to God in the hours of crisis.

Freedom of Religion is for the government, not the people, to be blind to a person’s religion. There is nothing in the constitution that requires that I turn a blind eye to my faith and vote for someone despite their religion.

It would seem to me that the republican party is making a mistake turning a blind eye to the fact that Romney can’t win primaries in the traditional republican states.

Well - it is both. I won’t vote for him because his political track record doesn’t coincide with my political beliefs - but I also won’t vote for him as I won’t vote for anyone whom isn’t saved. if a president is closed to god’s wisdom, he is open to the devil’s influence.

You may call me a bigot if you want - but I am most certainly not alone. In north central florida Romney won’t get 4 votes in 10. I think most good christians would rather not vote, then cast a vote for someone who will not be in god’s grace.

It has nothing to do with lumping people together - it is simply whether or not our leaders are saved, and are blessed by god. I prefer to have a president who knows god’s grace, than one who is going it alone.

He never had a chance, anyway. He can’t carry the south east, so he can’t win a republican election - or even make it through the primary. He’s a mormon - and like it or not - we don’t accept mormons as christians.

I would only vote for an evangelical christian. I’d have a hard time voting for a catholic due to their pedophiliac leadership, or a “new world” christian - like Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists. I know most Southern Baptists would agree with me.

So, from the graphs, I’d have to say that the only bipartisan social legislation was the civil rights act - with Medicare being primarily democRat, Welfare Reform being primarily us, and ObamaCare the rats again.

That’s about what I would have expected to see. The republican party had a strong liberal streak that started to die with the rise of talk radio and the rise of the moral majority - while the democrats had a strong conservative side until the civil rights act and vietnam, I’d bet you good money that that the medicare repubs were from the midwest and north east, and the welfare reform dems were from the south east and west.

I did work for a company in san fran that had the contract to develop the technology for the biometric card in ‘03. The intent was to require states to use it as a drivers license, and the feds in the us passport. I left the company in ‘04 - but the card was supposed to be used n GA and TX in ‘05, and other states as the legislature adopted the DHS standards thereafter. I have no reason to think they didn’t. My florida license has the slight (very slight) bump at the top - I’ve always assumed this rolled out as planned.

Plummz - please - on page 51 it does indeed discuss the controversy over Chester Arthur’s “place of birth and parentage”.

No - it doesn’t say “Fathers Naturalization Date - but really - what on earth do you think they are referring to with the word Parentage? In the context of a book that is claiming that Arthur is not a natural born citizen and thus not able to serve to be president? Published contemporary to Arthur? With people discussing whether or not he was actually born in america?

Have you read the Bates opinion? My understanding of AG’s opinions is that they form the basis for how the executive branch follows the law. Bates pretty clearly spells out that soil controls, and not blood. Has a subseqeunt interpretation by the courts countered this? Or by any subsequent AG?

And, again, I ask you, has there been any recognition of Arthur being a illegitimate president, as you claim? Any justices from the supreme court he appointed forced out? Any laws disregarded because they bear his signature? Anything like that at all? Anything? Any act by any agency - legislative, executive, or judicial - whatsoever? After spending the last hour scouring the internet, my old set of encyclopedias, and my “Definitive Guide To American History” I can’t find any such instance whatsoever.

Maybe I am wrong. Show me. Don’t just tell me Arthur’s illegitimate - back it up.

Plummz - did you read the book? Besides the earlier cites - here are a few more.

On page 51 - Letter to the editor on the subject, starting with “As much has been writtten and said lately regarding the birth-place and parentage of President Arthur, I thought I would write you...”

New York Times - same book - death notice for Arthur’s father. Read that. No confusion on the place of birth now, is there?

Senators letter - page 89 - you see the complete context. Read the entire Herald article, too.

The problem seems to be that you either aren’t really reading - and don’t intend to read - the 90 page book - and already have your mind made up. If that is the case, why even discuss it with me?

Now - where is your evidence that this was hidden at all?

The numbers do look great - let’s hope that pollesters other than rasumussen have the same results.

That, in a nutshell, is the whole plan of attack.

I found the book in my documents folder - I have in scanned in pdf. If you give me your email address, I’ll send it on over to you.

Your characterization of the book is correct - he felt that Arthur was Canadian - but the content of the book has numerous sections that support my point.

As to hiding it - I am not sure where you are getting that from. A.P. Hinton was a contemporary who wrote numerous letters to numerous officials on this issue - they are published in the book.

Since the book is a scan - I can’t cut and paste text. But just searching on the books titles includes these excerpts:

PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
(By cable to the Herald.)
London, December 12, 1881.

…Arthur even refrains from making comments
on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
also born Irishmen like the President.

---

Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.

DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
the U. S.

The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.

Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.

I can’t find references on any credible site that talks about Arthur hiding that his father was naturilized - except on sites bent on hiding that precedent to strengthen the argument that Obama is not natural born. Hinton’s book provides all the details you need to see that it was talked about, on a pretty constant basis, at the time.

Sure thing... Theres a great book you are looking for called “How a British Subject became President of the United States” by A.P. Hinton. It is the saga of a man on our side of the argument - and it contains numerous quotes and correspondence between himself and officials in new york and washington on the subject.

Here is another - but not on Arthur particularly:

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,” (not white persons,) ” persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship

But, you know, Plumz - while this was interesting for a bit - I am kinda wore out. I’ve got a 142KB text file of this junk gathered up during my research, have discussed the issue on two threads - and really don’t see a point. When it is all said and done, it’ll take a court case in front of the supreme court to decide what truly is or is not a Natural Born Citizen. All of our arguing on the message board ain’t gonna make any difference. My fear - my original reason for posting anything about this was that I felt we were about to be suckered big time and painted as a bunch of nutcases - and it is looking like that fear was really well founded.

Can you expand.

Chester Curtis was born in 1860 and his father fought for the Union during the War Between the States — what country are you saying his father was a citizen of in 1860?

Fair Question: Here's your answer. He was born in Kansas prior to it becoming a state, on an indian reservation. At the time, the supreme court had ruled that indians were not citizens (check out Elk v. Wilkins).

Calhoun is more tenative surrounding the immigrant status of the father.

Arthur was elected as a vice president, and gained the presidency after garfields assasination. His father was naturalized in 1843 - Arthur was born in 1829.

All three were controversies in their times of varying levels.

All three instances were found by googling "Natural Born Citizen" and "Vice President".

Have a great evening.

Naturalized after he won the vice presidency, I believe.

The real point - what does Natural Born Citizen mean - will have to be up to a supreme court to decide. Right now precedent is against us - but right now we have a majority of justices who support a strict interpretation...

I give you this - it’ll be an interesting year.

“Divide Scanned Photos” is for separating out multiple pictures on a scanned document. It will find seemingly natural borders and break them out to minimize the time needed for scanning.

Now do this - take your phone bill, scan it in, and do the same exercise. See what i mean? Any flat document with seemingly blockish borders will break out.

All I am saying is that the work done earlier on the thread with the signatures and the creases are much more telling than this.

Just a last thought - if the australian certificate is really authenticate - or not - that really has no bearing on the kenyan certificate. If that can be corroborated - then there it is.

Yep- one president and two vice presidents. The president is Chester Arthur - the veeps are Charles Curtis and John C. Calhoun

I’ve long thought that W was the best president of my long life time. He was a man of principle, who said what he stood for and didn’t waiver.

I just read this - if you search bomford birth certificate on the internet, this is what is now coming up first.

You know, it’ll all be as God wishes it to be - and in the end - it’ll work out according to his plan, exactly as he always intended it to.

My objection was to the quality of the article -the poorly reasoned, muddled articulation of the idea. I don’t deny there’ll be tough times ahead - of course there will be. I just don’t put much stock in hyperbole.

As I said earlier, the exact statute was posted here on FR many, many times back in November, when the issue was burning up JimRob's bandwidth. It's here.

Yep - I tracked it down, read it, and appreciated that information. It didn't change anything, but was good information and useful helping other people understand the whole picture.

Have a good one.

Actually - unless I am mistaken - i’ve only tried to address it on this one. Yes - I have put a lot of effort into it - some of the people I have continued to correspond with over private messages, and I’ve learned a lot - I’ve enjoyed the exercise.

My whole point was to raise awareness we are probably being suckered. I’ve stated it - and I’ll probably leave it where it lies.

Have a good day, Windflier. I’ve enjoyed talking to you.

I guess ask and I shall receive. 7 Fam 1130 - just downloaded it from the State Department.

It only applies if Obama was not really born in Hawaii, but somewhere overseas.

Many thanks to Dj Mac Wow for the cite in the other, current, ongoing thread.

Yeah, hopefully someone will post the citation. I can find this referenced on this site and by googling, but no one ever mentions the source of the law - frustrating. I am also not finding it on find law - but that is keyword driven, so not so surprising.

Basically - though - If I understand you - no one whose parents were under the age of 19 at the time of conception could become citizens. Is that correct?

Interesting theory - as I read what is below - you are basically say since the father isn’t/wasn’t a citizen, and since citizenship is conferred by the father, then he can’t be a citzen.

But then we have the Minor case - where they clearly divide citizenship into two seperate buckets - native born and naturalized by law. That is then followed by Wong Kim - while the site you listed below says that isn’t settled law - it is still a precedent in defines native born as being born on american soil. On top of all that, you have three individuals : Chester Arthur, John Calhoun and Charles Curtis who all held the office of President and/or vice president with no better citizenship claim than the current occupant holds - as well as numerous individuals (including John McCain and the modern conservative wellspring - Barry Goldwater) who ran and fell short.

From the site: The claim that english common law is not american law also can’t fly - our courts have long used english common law as precedent when no american law supersedes it.

As to consulting the founders and the gentlemen around the time the 14th ammendment was passed, I’ll give you Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, William Seward, John Adams, James Madison and Lincoln’s attorney general all arguing contrary to your quotes...

I’ll grant you this - i’d like to see, personally, the court battle contesting the Wong Kim decision, and the subsequent legislation that would supersede the Articles that currently define who is and is not a native born citizen. I think it’d be fun and informative. I’ll also grant that an argument can be made for a more restrictive interpretation for citizenship - this is precisely what you are arguing.

That being said, I still don’t think there is anything to the birth certificate controversy that started this whole discussion. Have a good night.

Sarah Palin's original publicity manager.

Now that is funny, right there. He can almost be forgiven for bringing her to national prominence.

Note I said almost

I had sent this to you privately, but I might as well do this here, too, since you posted the same in our other communication.

Thanks for the link - I had encountered that article before. Two things:

1. Despite what the linked article said, Chester Arthur was well known to have a father who was british - this was a controversy at the time. If necessary for you to believe that, start Googling. You’ll find it was reported in both the local press, the national press, and was enough of a controversy for both the secratary of state and the attorney general of new york to issue opinions on the side of Mr. Arthur. He is by no means the only politician to fall prey to the controversy - look at John Calhoun or Charles Curtis - both Vice Presidents, as Arthur was before ascending to the presidency after the assasination of Garfield.

2. Onto the main piece: Here is the whole applicable citation from Minor:

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ”

and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

This case actually proves is my point - there are two, and only two types of citizens, native born and naturalized. This also recognizes congress’s right to clarify who is and is not a citizen by birthright, which they did in the US Code I quoted earlier. The part about doubts is directly contemplating the law as it existed prior to the adoption of the 14th ammendment - the case concerning Wong I sent earlier defined it afterwards - namely - that a child with two foreign born parents is still a natural born citizen, provided he was born on american soil.

Want something that’ll blow your mind - From Lynch V. Clarke - where the court talks about the natural born status of a person with two alien parents becoming president. The link to the case is here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22alien+parents%22#PPA247,M1

Hey - One of the earliest sites I was pointed to was the naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com blog. At first it seemed pretty damning, until I started finding out about what natural born citizen has historically meant.

As it is - keep in mind our friend and former president Chester A. Arthur - born to a british father and vermont mother. The supreme court, in 1873, in the case McCREERY’S lessee v. SOMERVILLE., found that daughters of a foreign born father were native born citizens. As I posted in our private commuciation, a federal appeals court used the term natural born citizen to apply to a man with two foriegn born parents. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson all left notes behind as to what they meant by the term.

Well, there is the one minor detail of Obama Sr. being a citizen of Kenya, which automatically disqualifies Obama to hold the office of President, per Article II, Section I of the US Constitution.

There is no part of Article II, Section 1 that says that a person is not natural born if one parent is a foriegner. To top it all off - We've had a president before with a foreign father - Chester Arthur.

Your second point - the mother had to be a citizen at least 10 years - doesn't even make sense. She was a natural born citizen by any definition - that isn't up for debate, is it? Probably, though, I am just not understanding your point. What law are you specifically citing?

Just to keep things moving along - this is what the current state of the law is vis-a-vis Natural Born Citizen, taking into account the constituion and such: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Hi Tim - question 1 - was it possible for those born outside of the US to get a COLB.

One of the first articles I read about the birth certificate issue was on American Thinker - it brought up this issue and quoted as evidence hawaiian law - specifically §338-17.8. I found the law online, and here is what it say:

Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child… [L 1982, c 182, §1]

The idea goes that the parents/grandparents lied, the certificate was ammended and/or granted to indicate that he was born in Hawaii.

Another argument I came across is that it is possible to get a hawaiian birth certificate if a foreign born child was adopted through legal means by the parents who reside in hawaiian.

However - both laws weren't in existance when obama was born. The first was adopted in the 1980s. The second in the 1970s.

Neither reflect any light on the issue at all.

The second question - who validates presidential eligibility - I don't have an answer for. I don't know - because like y'all, I have always assumed each secretary of state did. That's a good question - and one of the loopholes that people like Congressman Campbell are trying to sew up.

No, i didn’t. Do you have anything that shows any evidence for a lack of eligibility?

Any single incident? Something other than rumor? Because that’s what I looked for - and I couldn’t find anything that existed beyond conjecture.

What cards are you holding?

I can’t argue with the fact it’ll be painful for a few years. In that, I stand in solidarity with you.

I was replying to multiple people - I wasn’t trying to take you out of context.

Are you referring to Kogelo? If so: There are indeed people flocking to visit that place. This has been referenced by some guests on talk radio and some sites that concentrate on obama’s illegitimacy. The original article this has been drawn from is http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/519448/-/u1d5wa/-/index.html. Read it for yourself, and when taken as a whole, it doesn’t say what has been purported.

As to the rest of what you said - I find everything about Obama strange - including the fact that he actually got elected. What I am cautioning, however, is not to fall into an obvious trap.

Yeah, since 2008. And that refutes what? Not a point I made.

We are conservatives, wintertime. A fact based community. I deal in facts. All you care about is when I started posting.
Stop being part of the problem.

I had to google that - the offical reason - the obama campaign did not know if that number could be publically disclosed. If you want to see the same cert with the numer not blacked out - head on out to factcheck.org.

I finally set down and did the whole digging thing through the "birther" conspiracy - Inspired to do so by the Major who filed lawsuit in Georgia - and I have to fall into the side of the national review, and the side of the gentleman who posted this article on free republic.

As the above article says - what the state of Hawaii issued is good enough for any purpose to prove his citizenship.

As the article above says: The grandmother never did say she witnessed his birth - you can read the actual transcript - the complete transcript - of the telephone call for yourself and you'll see she confirms he was born in hawaii.

The idea that Obama has spent millions hiding his certificate is false. The idea that he is shelling out money hand over fist is often used as an argument - but the attorneys have all done the work pro-bono (they are attorneys donating their time to the democratic party) or have been attorneys employed by the justice department. It isn't costing him a thing.

There are people who say even if he was born in Hawaii, he still isn't natural born - because hawaii was not a state (it was), because his mother had to live in the US first years after he was born (she doesn't), because his father was a british subject, because his mom wasn't yet 18 (she was). Head over to

www.usconstituion.net - and read for yourself what does and does not constitute a natural born citizen.

So why not just show the long form? Assuming he has it - I don't have mine, for instance - but I do have a "short form" that I requested when I joined the military a lifetime ago, The immediate answer that comes to my mind is that it works much better for Obama to have his opposition embroiled in our own little "9/11 Truther" - something that really doesn't stand a chance of doing any damage - but will keep us conservatives occupied. And if it does get blown up big - say next month - won't it be great for the Dems to have every news network do a special investigation and come up with the same damn stuff on national tv that any of us can just by going through google? Because you know they aren't going to dig any deeper - just a visit to fact check, urban legends.com, snopes, and a constitutional lawyer talking about what is and isn't a natural born citizen. We'd look like idiots, he'll seem that much shinier, and the dems will use the honey moon to roll over a few of our rinos who'll not want to be seen as being on the side of the "birthers." In the end, we'll just have gone a long way towards getting a few of his special projects passed - like tax hikes, socialized medicine, and re-criminalizing of wealth and success.

So I went to the original article, read it, and tried to source the references. The top website - internationalforecaster, is down - marketwatch.com doesn’t say what the author claims it said, and benjamin fulfords site is unsubstantiated clap trap. He is probably a closet democrat trying to make us conservatives look like idiots when we tell everyone the banks are closing in two months.

I mean, c’mon - Korea and Iran are controlled by the British world order? How thick does your tinfoil need to be to write for the antimullah?

This is in response to the health care bill, where I took umbrage to the claim that page 16 outlawed competition to the government run health care insurance being driven through congress by the democrats, the AMA, and the usual suspects.

I got the following responses from y'all, and then didn't reply to you for a pretty long time. My apologies on that - have been away from the computer.

Mr. Silverback If so, why did the House Wys And Means committee confirm their interpretation, and why did one of Obama's lackeys confirm it under questioning from Paul Ryan last week?

tsmith130 Really, how so?

Cyber Liberty I have the bill in front of me. What are you talking about?

That section of the bill, starting from page 14 and continuing past page 16, discusses what qualifies as grandfathered insurance and provides a grace period for existing policies whose periods of enrollment extend past the date the law is enacted to cover what congress is mandating as minimum coverage.

That’s why I took umbrage with the original editorial. It is obvious the writer simply saw a sentence, and decided to write an article about it. I hate sloppy journalism.

Have a blessed day.

Sorry for the delay - have been away from the computer.

That section of the bill, starting from page 14 and continuing past page 16, discusses what qualifies as grandfathered insurance and provides a grace period for existing policies whose periods of enrollment extend past the date the law is enacted to cover what congress is mandating as minimum coverage.

That’s why I took umbrage with the original editorial. It is obvious they simply saw a sentence, and decided to write an article about it. I hate sloppy journalism.

Have a blessed day.

Not a big waxman fan either - but if you start reading on page 14 of the bill, you’ll find that the author of the editorial was “reading challenged.”

JG - again, a compellingly worded letter. I can’t say why or why not the administration doesn’t produce a birth certificate, and in fact won’t even go there.

I understand that this is good legal strategy for Dr. Taitz - recruiting active duty for the lawsuits - but to me, good legal strategy takes a back seat to the points I raised in the earlier post.

I understand your points - I just can’t share your final viewpoint on the matter.

I never heard of this group - but after some research found that they are the conservative version of the AMA. They have their priorities in the right order - they are against abortion, birth control, medicare, medicade, social security, the fda, mandatory vaccinations and government run health care.

Pretty cool - we’ll see if this press release gets talked about as much as the AMA endorsement did.

I am stunned, just stunned, that both the readers at Daily Kos exhibit such juvenile behavior.

Kind of like I am always surprised when the sun comes up in the morning, or goes down in the evening.

I appreciate the point you are eloquently making - but where you see a possibility that Maj. Cook will be tried and convicted in a war crimes tribunal, along with, I am assuming, the hundreds of thousands of other men and women who also served in Iraq and Afghanistan - I am seeing the more immediate impact.

To me, the results of his action are as follows:

1. More soldiers will be emboldened to use this route to mask cowardice. As a veteran, you know the anxiety that goes with your first deployment in the field. Some men are going to be weak, and they’ll use this tactic, thereby ruining there own careers and subsequent futures - because being saddled with a dishonorable discharge isn’t something that goes away.

2. Someone got sent in Maj. Cook’s place. On short notice. You know that should never happen. We don’t ask people to serve for us, to fill in for us. If that person dies? If members of his company die?

3. This will have negatively impacted morale in the ranks - where some 40% of those in the service voted for Obama.

4. He crippled his effectiveness as a commander. Make no mistake - if he stays in the service, which I would find suprising, he’ll always been known as the man who filed suit rather than deploy. All that experience he acquired while earning that rank has been flushed down the toilet.

Now - I feel that my points are more immediate, more certain, than a hypothetical time where our veterans are facing a war crimes trial because they fought in two theaters that predate this administration, carry the blessing of congress, operate under a united nations resolution and with the permission of both the Iraqi and Afghani governments.

As to your question on whether or not a member of the military has the right to know if the CIC has a valid birth certificate - I’d say certainly. But the way this was done was poor indeed.

While you say that you believe the Major stands ready to do his duty - I am saying that he won’t get the chance. He shot himself in the foot - many are going to think on purpose to avoid duty - and he won’t be trusted again.